It is true that incorporation protects a right from infringement by the states. Some look at this as a good thing and, on the surface, appears to be so.
But, two things. One, the Founding Fathers had the opportunity to "incorporate" the BOR when the were drafting the amendments. It was rejected.
Two, when an amendment is incorporated, the interpretation of that amendment is done by the USSC, and that interpretation then applies to all the states.
For example, prior to the incorporation of the 1st amendment, each state, by their individual state constitutions, defined the speech that they would protect -- federalism in action. But once the 1st amendment was incorporated, the USSC defined speech -- and that's why all state must allow nude dancing as "protected speech".
THAT'S where the problem lies. That's why we're so lucky that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated. Can you imagine the USSC defining "arms", or "bear" or "keep"? They might, for example, define "arms" as rifles only, or "bear arms" as not concealed, or "keep" as in a state armory. That interpretation would then apply to each and every state equally.
Some other problems with incorporation. 1. Why is it that the amendment that allegedly incorporates the BOR NEVER EVEN MENTIONS THE BOR??? 2. The PRIV and IMM clause. I think we would all agree (I HOPE) that the Fed gov is not entitled to set up a welfare state. It's not in the enumeration. The fed gov is not entitled to set up a dept of educat. It's not in the enumeration. Therefore, as a citizen I am IMMUNE to being taxed for welfare or edu from the fed gov. IF, as a citizen of a state, I am to enjoy, on the state level, all IMMUNITIES that I am entitled to from the fed gove, it follows to reason, that even the STATE gove may not set up a welfare program or even a school system. Surely this was not intended. People who go in for incorporation, basically say "The same rules apply to fed and state gov now." They think this somehow only applies to BOR type legislation, but where do they get that narrow view? Again, the amend does NOT say anything about the BOR. 3. The biggest problem. The amendment in question either DOES or it does NOT say, "The bor now applies to the states." We can all agree on that, I hope. But, it ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY does NOT say "The USSC will decide exactly which rights apply and which do not, and the USSC shall make these determinations on a case by case basis as the USSC shall see fit." That much, I guarantee you the amendment did not intend, and yet, that's exactly what we have. The USSC has never once said that the bor applies to the states, as many people think. It has instead moved on a case by case basis. Scumbags.
I see your point here. The only solution I see is for someone to sue the state or the fedguv on a gun violation for deprivation of rights. No one would argue that the right to life is not an unalienable right. Whether I choose to use a gun or or a knife or a baseball bat is my business. At my age and physical condition, I would choose a fully automatic pistol, and would probably choose to coneal it as to not freak out everyone when I go to the bank or the deli.